New Delhi: Observing that a bank account is the very essence of an individual’s economic existence, Delhi High Court has directed a private bank to immediately defreeze the account of a city resident, holding that its continued blocking without any FIR, accusation or judicial order was “wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law”.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a petition filed by the account holder, whose account was frozen following a complaint from the Gujarat Cyber Crime Police in Nov 2024.Ordering the bank to “immediately defreeze” the account, the court said that in the absence of any material connecting the petitioner to any offence, the action could not be sustained. It added that there was no justification from the Gujarat Police for the continued seizure of the account.“A bank account is not just a place to keep money but is the very essence of an individual’s economic existence,” the court said. Quoting Roman jurist and philosopher Cicero, the court observed: “‘So-and-so is innocent; but although he is free from guilt, he is not free from suspicion’. That is precisely the petitioner’s situation.”“His account is frozen and his money is stuck, but there is no accusation, no FIR and no judicial order against him. Freezing an account without any justification is bound to cause impediments to the right to life,” the court noted.The plea stated that in 2024, the petitioner received around Rs 87,000 from his brother, after which the bank placed a lien on half the amount on the basis of a complaint from the Gujarat Cyber Crime Police. In March and April last year, the freeze was extended to the entire balance.The petitioner contended that no FIR was registered against him and that he had neither been summoned nor named as a suspect in any investigation.“The court finds that in the absence of any justification by the Cyber Crime Police, Gujarat, the continuing seizure of the petitioner’s account was uncalled for,” the HC said, adding that the bank failed to produce any order from a competent court authorising the debit freeze. “This breaches the constitutional guarantees the petitioner is entitled to,” it added.Noting that the investigating agency had neither filed a reply nor placed any material on record linking the petitioner to any offence, the court held that the continued freeze could not be sustained in law. It, however, directed the petitioner to cooperate if any investigation or inquiry is initiated by the agency concerned.
